This broadcast continues our visits with Jim DiEugenio–author of Destiny Betrayed and JFK Revisited–selected by Oliver Stone to write the screenplay for his latest documentary.
We highlight: Jefferson Morley’s observation that recent release of documents by Biden is inadequate—many documents remain classified, including many important ones; The discussion of Admiral Burkley’s aide James Young and his aides Mills and Martinell’s retrieval of material from the limousine; Ruby’s numerous Mob connections, and RFK’s role going after Mafia; The deep politics of Mob involvement in the assassination of JFK, as well as the killing of RFK; The Alliance for Progress: What JFK intended with the policy and LBJ’s steering of the program in a diametrically opposite direction; analysis of JFK’s attempts at establishing a more balanced policy toward the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Topics covered include; JFK’s diplomatic overture to Nasser, to which the Egyptian president was receptive; Kennedy’s discussions with Israel seeking to gain assurance that the Dimona nuclear reactor was for peaceful purposes only.
Focusing primarily on an extremely ominous development, these programs set forth a new “War on Cancer,” launched by the Biden administration. The primary rationale for the development of a new federal agency, this new organization appears to be a medical/scientific iteration of DARPA—the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
Ominously, it may well be the successor to Richard Nixon’s “War on Cancer,” which did not defeat cancer, but did serve as the apparent platform for the development of biological warfare weapons, AIDS in particular.
The Third Reich’s biological warfare program was masked as a cancer research facility.
Modeled after DARPA, headed by a DARPA alumna whose CV intersects with that Agency’s apparent involvement with the development of Covid-19 and with an acting director who is also a former employee of that benighted organization, this new “health agency–ARPA‑H”, this agency will employ new, synthetic biology technology.
Although that development is represented as humanitarian, the structure of the agency and the national security backgrounds of its leading personnel suggest strongly that this agency, too, will serve as a clandestine platform for the next generation of biological weaponry.
The second program begins with a signature point of information—a brief Twitter video of Professor Jeffrey Sachs opining that SARS Cov‑2 originated from a U.S. biological laboratory. His frankly obligatory qualification that it was a “blunder” is best understood as “business as usual” for a relatively high-profile public figure.
Were he to say otherwise, he would be subject to retribution, possibly deadly.
As it is now, he will simply be ignored.
Points of Discussion and Analysis Include: An update on Philip Zelikow’s overlapping roles in the 9/11 “investigation,” the realization of PNAC’s defense recommendations, as well as the “inquiry” into Covid-19; Review of Peter Thiel’s and Trump’s apparently successful attempt at kneecapping the FDA; The numerous CIA and reactionary links to the development of Moderna’s mRNA Omicron booster; A jellyfish whose genome may very well yield information for a synthetic biology/life extension eugenic manifestation of interest to “Team Thiel;” The career of Anthony Fauci and its “bookends”–AIDS and Covid-19.
By way of introduction, we present a link to a short Twitter video by Professor Jeffrey Sachs.
NB: The information in this program and accompanying description is largely a recap of material presented in the first five programs in this series. It is repeated and presented in a different order in the audio file.
This repetition is due to: A) the highly technical nature of much of the discussion of the viral composition of SARS CoV‑2 and related viruses and B) the tremendous significance of this information.
Continuing analysis of a frightening consortium of institutions apparently linked to the deliberate genesis of Covid-19, this program reiterates elements of analysis from FTR#‘s 1254 & 1255, presenting the information in a different sequence for increased understanding and retention.
Those institutions are: EcoHealth Alliance, Metabiota, In-Q-Tel and Munich Reinsurance.
Taken together, a number of points of information highlighted here go a long way to proving the legal concept of “consciousness of guilt,” the guilt being intent to create the pandemic and knowledge that such a thing was done.
(The information presented here should be taken in conjunction with information presented in–among other programs–FTR#‘s 1251, 1252 and 1253. In turn, those programs are developments of documentation presented in our many programs about Covid-19.)
Of paramount importance in evaluating the material here and in the other broadcasts about Covid-19 is the development of synthetic biology and the manner in which it enables biological warfare: “ . . . Advances in the area mean that scientists now have the capability to recreate dangerous viruses from scratch; make harmful bacteria more deadly; and modify common microbes so that they churn out lethal toxins once they enter the body. . . In the report, the scientists describe how synthetic biology, which gives researchers precision tools to manipulate living organisms, ‘enhances and expands’ opportunities to create bioweapons. . . . Today, the genetic code of almost any mammalian virus can be found online and synthesised. ‘The technology to do this is available now,’ said [Michael] Imperiale. “It requires some expertise, but it’s something that’s relatively easy to do, and that is why it tops the list. . . .”
Going a long way toward proving consciousness of guilt are:
1.–The behavior of Peter Daszak and colleagues in “gaming” the Lancet statement on the “natural” origin of the coronavirus (Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance–funded and advised by the national security establishment–is implicated in the creation of the SARS COV‑2.)
2.–The reaction of government officials to Trump administration officials into the origins of the virus, advising would be investigators that such inquiries would open a “can of worms,” or “a Pandora’s Box” because it would should light on U.S. funding of the projects.
3.–Metabiota–partnered with EcoHealth Alliance–was networked with In-Q-Tel (the intelligence community’s venture capital arm) and Munich Re to provide pandemic insurance. Their 2018 business model directly foreshadowed the pandemic. In 2018, as well, EcoHealth Alliance proposed a “novel coronavirus” for synthesis by DARPA. Although there is no evidence that DARPA synthesized the virus, the U.S. did synthesize closely related viruses. With the genome of that novel virus having been published, it may well have been synthesized either by DARPA or someone else, given the contemporary technology. Again, this, also was in 2018.
4.–Many aspects of the SARS COV‑2 virus, including its curious FCS site and institutionalized obfuscation of aspects of the pandemic it caused suggest deliberate cover-up. Why would the NIH redact 290 pages of a document requested by an FOIA suit!! Why were sequences of bat coronavirus genomes removed from public view?
It’s remarkable just how damning our beginning article is.
Co-author of the letter to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and former chairman of the Lancet’s commission on the origins of the pandemic, Sachs is someone in a position to bring real public attention to this topic, if he chooses to do so. The authors make a compelling case for an independent investigation, and who would be in a better position than Sachs to make this case publicly after he disbanded his Lancet Commission over these kinds of concerns? That’s all part of what is going to make this a story to watch.
This article has some remarkable points of information to be considered and it is altogether welcome and important that someone of Dr. Sachs’ high professional profile and prestige has come forward:
1.–“ . . . . The NIH could say more about the possible role of its grantees in the emergence of SARS-CoV‑2, yet the agency has failed to reveal to the public the possibility that SARS-CoV‑2 emerged from a research-associated event, even though several researchers raised that concern on February 1, 2020, in a phone conversation that was documented by email (5). Those emails were released to the public only through FOIA, and they suggest that the NIH leadership took an early and active role in promoting the ‘zoonotic hypothesis’ and the rejection of the laboratory-associated hypothesis. . . .”
2.–“ . . . . The NIH has resisted the release of important evidence, such as the grant proposals and project reports of EHA, and has continued to redact materials released under FOIA, including a remarkable 290-page redaction in a recent FOIA release. . . .”
3.–“ . . . . Acting NIH Director Lawrence Tabak testified before Congress that several such sequences in a US database were removed from public view. . . .”
4.–“ . . . . Special concerns surround the presence of an unusual furin cleavage site (FCS) in SARS-CoV‑2 (10) that augments the pathogenicity and transmissibility of the virus relative to related viruses like SARS-CoV‑1 (11, 12). SARS-CoV‑2 is, to date, the only identified member of the subgenus sarbecovirus that contains an FCS, although these are present in other coronaviruses (13, 14). A portion of the sequence of the spike protein of some of these viruses is illustrated in the alignment shown in Fig. 1, illustrating the unusual nature of the FCS and its apparent insertion in SARS-CoV‑2 (15).From the first weeks after the genome sequence of SARS-CoV‑2 became available, researchers have commented on the unexpected presence of the FCS within SARS-CoV‑2—the implication being that SARS-CoV‑2 might be a product of laboratory manipulation. In a review piece arguing against this possibility, it was asserted that the amino acid sequence of the FCS in SARS-CoV‑2 is an unusual, nonstandard sequence for an FCS and that nobody in a laboratory would design such a novel FCS (13). . . .”
5.–“ . . . . In fact, the assertion that the FCS in SARS-CoV‑2 has an unusual, nonstandard amino acid sequence is false. . . . (The one non-human non-great ape species with the same sequence is Pipistrellus kuhlii, a bat species found in Europe and Western Asia; other bat species, including Rhinolophus ferrumequinem, have a different FCS sequence in ENaC a [RKAR’SAAS]). . . .”
5.–“ . . . . We do know that the insertion of such FCS sequences into SARS-like viruses was a specific goal of work proposed by the EHA-WIV-UNC partnership within a 2018 grant proposal (“DEFUSE”) that was submitted to the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) (25).The 2018 proposal to DARPA was not funded, but we do not know whether some of the proposed work was subsequently carried out in 2018 or 2019, perhaps using another source of funding. . . .”
6.–“ . . . . We also know that that this research team would be familiar with several previous experiments involving the successful insertion of an FCS sequence into SARS-CoV‑1 (26) and other coronaviruses, and they had a lot of experience in construction of chimeric SARS-like viruses (27–29). In addition, the research team would also have some familiarity with the FCS sequence and the FCS-dependent activation mechanism of human ENaC (19), which was extensively characterized at UNC (17, 18).For a research team assessing the pandemic potential of SARS-related coronaviruses, the FCS of human ENaC—an FCS known to be efficiently cleaved by host furin present in the target location (epithelial cells) of an important target organ (lung), of the target organism (human)—might be a rational, if not obvious, choice of FCS to introduce into a virus to alter its infectivity, in line with other work performed previously. . . .”
7.–“ . . . . Of course, the molecular mimicry of ENaC within the SARS-CoV‑2 spike protein might be a mere coincidence, although one with a very low probability. The exact FCS sequence present in SARS-CoV‑2 has recently been introduced into the spike protein of SARS-CoV‑1 in the laboratory, in an elegant series of experiments (12, 30), with predictable consequences in terms of enhanced viral transmissibility and pathogenicity. Obviously, the creation of such SARS‑1/2 “chimeras” is an area of some concern for those responsible for present and future regulation of this area of biology. . . .”
8.–“ . . . . Information now held by the research team headed by EHA (7), as well as the communications of that research team with US research funding agencies, including NIH, USAID, DARPA, DTRA, and the Department of Homeland Security, could shed considerable light on the experiments undertaken by the US-funded research team and on the possible relationship, if any, between those experiments and the emergence of SARS-CoV‑2. . . .”
Recapping information from our “Oswald Institute of Virology” series, we note that Trump officials who were looking to tout the Chinese “lab-leak” hypothesis were told to avoid the topic, lest it create problems for the U.S.
Note, as well, that both Peter Daszak and Ralph Baric, associated with EcoHealth Alliance, were engaged in dubious maneuvering to eclipse attention on the possible U.S. sponsorship of the SARS COV‑2 gain-of-function manipulations.
1.–” . . . . It soon emerged, based on emails obtained by a Freedom of Information group called U.S. Right to Know, that Daszak had not only signed but organized the influential Lancet statement, with the intention of concealing his role and creating the impression of scientific unanimity. . . .”
2.–” . . . . In one State Department meeting, officials seeking to demand transparency from the Chinese government say they were explicitly told by colleagues not to explore the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s gain-of-function research, because it would bring unwelcome attention to U.S. government funding of it. . . . because it would ‘open a can of worms’ if it continued.’. . .”
3.–” . . . . As the group probed the lab-leak scenario, among other possibilities, its members were repeatedly advised not to open a ‘Pandora’s box,’ said four former State Department officials interviewed by Vanity Fair. The admonitions ‘smelled like a cover-up,’ said Thomas DiNanno . . . .”
Next, the program reviews an excerpting of a “Wired” Magazine article about the Metabiota/Munich Reinsurance project.
Bear in mind that In-Q-Tel, the venture capital arm of the CIA and the intelligence community, is greasing the wheels of this project with financing.
We highlight two key points of information:
1.–The business success of the pandemic insurance would necessarily incorporate analysis of the “fear factor” of potential pandemic pathogens: ” . . . . As sophisticated as Metabiota’s system was, however, it would need to be even more refined to incorporate into an insurance policy. The model would need to capture something much more difficult to quantify than historical deaths and medical stockpiles: fear. The economic consequences of a scourge, the historical data showed, were as much a result of society’s response as they were to the virus itself. . . . The Sentiment Index was built to be, as Oppenheim put it, ‘a catalog of dread.’ For any given pathogen, it could spit out a score from 0 to 100 according to how frightening the public would find it. . . . Madhav and her team, along with Wolfe and Oppenheim, also researched the broader economic consequences of disease outbreaks, measured in the ‘cost per death prevented’ incurred by societal interventions. ‘Measures that decreased person-to-person contact, including social distancing, quarantine, and school closures, had the greatest cost per death prevented, most likely because of the amount of economic disruption caused by those measures,’ they wrote in a 2018 paper. . . .”
2.–More sinister, still, is the fact that Metabiota had analyzed the scenario of a novel coronavirus pandemic two years before it happened. This appears to be the 2018 paper referred to above. Do not fail to note that, at the time that Metabiota was running this scenario, they were partnered with EcoHealth Alliance, which was using Pentagon and USAID money to research and perform gain-of-function on these types of coronaviruses!! ” . . . . As the human and economic devastation multiplied in tandem across the globe, Metabiota’s employees suddenly found themselves living inside their own model’s projections. Just two years earlier, the company had run a large set of scenarios forecasting the consequences of a novel coronavirus spreading around the globe. . . .”
Pivoting to a another interesting, emerging disease that was a point of interest for Metabiota, we open a discussion of monkey pox, a disease that will be more completely discussed in the next program.
Metabiota was evaluating monkeypox in late 2019: ” . . . . it rated this risk for the monkeypox virus in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (where there have been reported cases of that virus) as ‘medium.’ . . .”
We conclude this program with an excerpting of an op-ed column by Scott Gottlieb, the head of the FDA under Trump, a member of the conservative American Enterprise Institute and a member of the board of directors of Pfizer.
He notes that the new agency created by Biden to deal with monkeypox and other emerging infections was formerly: ” . . . . an office inside the Department of Health and Human Services that is charged with coordinating the federal response to bioterrorism . . . .”
This program further develops the consortium of EcoHealth Alliance, Metabiota, In-Q-Tel and Munich Reinsurance.
By way of introduction, we present a link to a short Twitter video by Professor Jeffrey Sachs.
Taken together, a number of points of information highlighted here go a long way to proving the legal concept of “consciousness of guilt,” the guilt being intent to create the pandemic and knowledge that such a thing was done.
(The information presented here should be taken in conjunction with information presented in–among other programs–FTR#‘s 1251, 1252 and 1253. In turn, those programs are developments of documentation presented in our many programs about Covid-19.)
Of paramount importance in evaluating the material here and in the other broadcasts about Covid-19 is the development of synthetic biology and the manner in which it enables biological warfare: “ . . . Advances in the area mean that scientists now have the capability to recreate dangerous viruses from scratch; make harmful bacteria more deadly; and modify common microbes so that they churn out lethal toxins once they enter the body. . . In the report, the scientists describe how synthetic biology, which gives researchers precision tools to manipulate living organisms, ‘enhances and expands’ opportunities to create bioweapons. . . . Today, the genetic code of almost any mammalian virus can be found online and synthesised. ‘The technology to do this is available now,’ said [Michael] Imperiale. “It requires some expertise, but it’s something that’s relatively easy to do, and that is why it tops the list. . . .”
Going a long way toward proving consciousness of guilt are:
1.–The behavior of Peter Daszak and colleagues in “gaming” the Lancet statement on the “natural” origin of the coronavirus (Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance–funded and advised by the national security establishment–is implicated in the creation of the SARS COV‑2.)
2.–The reaction of government officials to Trump administration officials into the origins of the virus, advising would be investigators that such inquiries would open a “can of worms,” or “a Pandora’s Box” because it would should light on U.S. funding of the projects.
3.–Metabiota–partnered with EcoHealth Alliance–was networked with In-Q-Tel (the intelligence community’s venture capital arm) and Munich Re to provide pandemic insurance. Their 2018 business model directly foreshadowed the pandemic. In 2018, as well, EcoHealth Alliance proposed a “novel coronavirus” for synthesis by DARPA. Although there is no evidence that DARPA synthesized the virus, the U.S. did synthesize closely related viruses. With the genome of that novel virus having been published, it may well have been synthesized either by DARPA or someone else, given the contemporary technology. Again, this, also was in 2018.
4.–Many aspects of the SARS COV‑2 virus, including its curious FCS site and institutionalized obfuscation of aspects of the pandemic it caused suggest deliberate cover-up. Why would the NIH redact 290 pages of a document requested by an FOIA suit!! Why were sequences of bat coronavirus genomes removed from public view?
We begin by noting the OUN/B affiliation of Ulana Suprun, who was the Ukrainian Minister of Health from 2016 until2019, placing her very much “in the mix” with Andrew C. Weber and the Metabiota, EcoHealth Alliance and Munich Re consortium.
” . . . . Suprun is the husband of the Ukrainian American Ulana Suprun, a prominent Bandera enthusiast with ties to the Ukrainian far-right who served as the Healthcare Minister of Ukraine from July 2016 through August 2019. . . .”
We can confidently conclude that Metabiota founder NathanWolfe was in Jeffrey Epstein’s orbit.
We include a link to an excellent Covert Action Magazine article about Epstein and his myriad intelligence connections for the convenience of the listener and requisite background information.
Recapping information from our “Oswald Institute of Virology” series, we note that Trump officials who were looking to tout the Chinese “lab-leak” hypothesis were told to avoid the topic, lest it create problems for the U.S.
Note, as well, that both Peter Daszak and Ralph Baric, associated with EcoHealth Alliance, were engaged in dubious maneuvering to eclipse attention on the possible U.S. sponsorship of the SARS COV‑2 gain-of-function manipulations.
1.–” . . . . It soon emerged, based on emails obtained by a Freedom of Information group called U.S. Right to Know, that Daszak had not only signed but organized the influential Lancet statement, with the intention of concealing his role and creating the impression of scientific unanimity. . . .”
2.–” . . . . In one State Department meeting, officials seeking to demand transparency from the Chinese government say they were explicitly told by colleagues not to explore the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s gain-of-function research, because it would bring unwelcome attention to U.S. government funding of it. . . . because it would ‘‘open a can of worms’ if it continued.’. . .”
3.–” . . . . As the group probed the lab-leak scenario, among other possibilities, its members were repeatedly advised not to open a ‘Pandora’s box,’ said four former State Department officials interviewed by Vanity Fair. The admonitions ‘smelled like a cover-up,’ said Thomas DiNanno . . . .”
In our exhaustive series on the Covid-19 pandemic, we have presented overwhelming evidence that the SARS CoV‑2 was synthesized in a U.S. lab.
Having chaired a Lancet commission to investigate the origins of SARS CoV‑2, Dr. Jeffrey Sachs is “pretty convinced” that the virus came from a U.S. laboratory.
He opines that it was a “blunder.”
Although we believe Covid-19 was a biological warfare attack, we are greatly encouraged that someone of Sachs’ stature has come forward in this regard.
In many past programs, we have highlighted institutions implicated in the apparent “bio-skullduggery” surrounding the U.S. biological warfare gambit involving what Mr. Emory has termed “The Oswald Institute of Virology.” This is discussed in: FTR#‘s 1157–1159, 1170, 1183 through 1193, and 1215.
The essence of the “Oswald Institute of Virology” gambit concerns the DTRA and Pentagon funding of bat-borne coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, much of it through Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance. Once the research was complete, it resulted in publication which included the genome of the bat viruses being researched. Using technology discussed above (in the Guardian article), the viruses were then synthesized from scratch and population groups were vectored with the same viral strains being researched by the WIV.
Dr. Sachs’ ruminations about a U.S. biological laboratory origin of SARS-CoV‑2 are fleshed out in an interview–featured on his website–with the Tehran Times.
Note that he continues to opine that the release was a “blunder” and that it did not result from biological warfare research. Again, this is modified limited hangout.
Next, the program reviews an excerpting of a Wired Magazine article about the Metabiota/Munich Reinsurance project.
Bear in mind that In-Q-Tel, the venture capital arm of the CIA and the intelligence community, is greasing the wheels of this project with financing.
We highlight two key points of information:
1.–The business success of the pandemic insurance would necessarily incorporate analysis of the “fear factor” of potential pandemic pathogens: ” . . . . As sophisticated as Metabiota’s system was, however, it would need to be even more refined to incorporate into an insurance policy. The model would need to capture something much more difficult to quantify than historical deaths and medical stockpiles: fear. The economic consequences of a scourge, the historical data showed, were as much a result of society’s response as they were to the virus itself. . . . The Sentiment Index was built to be, as Oppenheim put it, ‘a catalog of dread.’ For any given pathogen, it could spit out a score from 0 to 100 according to how frightening the public would find it. . . . Madhav and her team, along with Wolfe and Oppenheim, also researched the broader economic consequences of disease outbreaks, measured in the ‘cost per death prevented’ incurred by societal interventions. ‘Measures that decreased person-to-person contact, including social distancing, quarantine, and school closures, had the greatest cost per death prevented, most likely because of the amount of economic disruption caused by those measures,’ they wrote in a 2018 paper. . . .”
2.–More sinister, still, is the fact that Metabiota had analyzed the scenario of a novel coronavirus pandemic two years before it happened. This appears to be the 2018 paper referred to above. Do not fail to note that, at the time that Metabiota was running this scenario, they were partnered with EcoHealth Alliance, which was using Pentagon and USAID money to research and perform gain-of-function on these types of coronaviruses!! ” . . . . As the human and economic devastation multiplied in tandem across the globe, Metabiota’s employees suddenly found themselves living inside their own model’s projections. Just two years earlier, the company had run a large set of scenarios forecasting the consequences of a novel coronavirus spreading around the globe. . . .”
Despite our deep reservations about Jeffrey Sachs—expressed in numerous programs and posts–it’s remarkable just how damning our concluding article is.
Sachs is someone in a position to bring real public attention to this topic, if he chooses to do so. The authors make a compelling case for an independent investigation, and who would be in a better position than Sachs to make this case publicly after he disbanded his Lancet Commission over these kinds of concerns? That’s all part of what is going to make this a story to watch.
“ . . . . Information now held by the research team headed by EHA (7), as well as the communications of that research team with US research funding agencies, including NIH, USAID, DARPA, DTRA, and the Department of Homeland Security, could shed considerable light on the experiments undertaken by the US-funded research team and on the possible relationship, if any, between those experiments and the emergence of SARS-CoV‑2. . . .”
If our suspicions about Sachs are well-founded, he might be in position to control the results that do emerge.
Nonetheless, this article has some remarkable points of information to be considered and it is altogether welcome and important that someone of Dr. Sachs’ high professional profile and prestige has come forward:
1.–“ . . . . Much of the work on SARS-like CoVs performed in Wuhan was part of an active and highly collaborative US–China scientific research program funded by the US Government (NIH, Defense Threat Reduction Agency [DTRA—Pentagon, D.E.], and US Agency for International Development [USAID]—State Department, frequent cover for CIA, D.E.), coordinated by researchers at EcoHealth Alliance (EHA—Chief funders are Pentagon, USAID, science and policy advisor is David Franz, former commanding officer of the U.S. Army Research Institute of Infectious Disease—D.E.), but involving researchers at several other US institutions. For this reason, it is important that US institutions be transparent about any knowledge of the detailed activities that were underway in Wuhan and in the United States. The evidence may also suggest that research institutions in other countries were involved, and those too should be asked to submit relevant information (e.g., with respect to unpublished sequences). . . .”
2.–“ . . . . as outlined below, much could be learned by investigating US-supported and US-based work that was underway in collaboration with Wuhan-based institutions, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), China. It is still not clear whether the IC investigated these US-supported and US-based activities. If it did, it has yet to make any of its findings available to the US scientific community for independent and transparent analysis and assessment. If, on the other hand, the IC [Intelligence Community] did not investigate these US-supported and US-based activities, then it has fallen far short of conducting a comprehensive investigation. . . .”
3.–“ . . . . Participating US institutions include the EHA, the University of North Carolina (UNC), the University of California at Davis (UCD), the NIH, and the USAID.Under a series of NIH grants and USAID contracts, EHA coordinated the collection of SARS-like bat CoVs from the field in southwest China and southeast Asia, the sequencing of these viruses, the archiving of these sequences (involving UCD), and the analysis and manipulation of these viruses (notably at UNC). A broad spectrum of coronavirus research work was done not only in Wuhan (including groups at Wuhan University and the Wuhan CDC, as well as WIV) but also in the United States. The exact details of the fieldwork and laboratory work of the EHA-WIV-UNC partnership, and the engagement of other institutions in the United States and China, has not been disclosed for independent analysis. The precise nature of the experiments that were conducted, including the full array of viruses collected from the field and the subsequent sequencing and manipulation of those viruses, remains unknown. . . .”
4.–“ . . . . The NIH could say more about the possible role of its grantees in the emergence of SARS-CoV‑2, yet the agency has failed to reveal to the public the possibility that SARS-CoV‑2 emerged from a research-associated event, even though several researchers raised that concern on February 1, 2020, in a phone conversation that was documented by email (5). Those emails were released to the public only through FOIA, and they suggest that the NIH leadership took an early and active role in promoting the ‘zoonotic hypothesis’ and the rejection of the laboratory-associated hypothesis. . . .”
5.–“ . . . . The NIH has resisted the release of important evidence, such as the grant proposals and project reports of EHA, and has continued to redact materials released under FOIA, including a remarkable 290-page redaction in a recent FOIA release. . . .”
6.–“ . . . . Acting NIH Director Lawrence Tabak testified before Congress that several such sequences in a US database were removed from public view. . . .”
7.–“ . . . . Special concerns surround the presence of an unusual furin cleavage site (FCS) in SARS-CoV‑2 (10) that augments the pathogenicity and transmissibility of the virus relative to related viruses like SARS-CoV‑1 (11, 12). SARS-CoV‑2 is, to date, the only identified member of the subgenus sarbecovirus that contains an FCS, although these are present in other coronaviruses (13, 14). A portion of the sequence of the spike protein of some of these viruses is illustrated in the alignment shown in Fig. 1, illustrating the unusual nature of the FCS and its apparent insertion in SARS-CoV‑2 (15).From the first weeks after the genome sequence of SARS-CoV‑2 became available, researchers have commented on the unexpected presence of the FCS within SARS-CoV‑2—the implication being that SARS-CoV‑2 might be a product of laboratory manipulation. In a review piece arguing against this possibility, it was asserted that the amino acid sequence of the FCS in SARS-CoV‑2 is an unusual, nonstandard sequence for an FCS and that nobody in a laboratory would design such a novel FCS (13). . . .”
8.–“ . . . . In fact, the assertion that the FCS in SARS-CoV‑2 has an unusual, nonstandard amino acid sequence is false. The amino acid sequence of the FCS in SARS-CoV‑2 also exists in the human ENaC a subunit (16), where it is known to be functional and has been extensively studied (17, 18). The FCS of human ENaC a has the amino acid sequence RRAR’SVAS ( 2), an eight–amino-acid sequence that is perfectly identical with the FCS of SARS-CoV‑2 (16).ENaC is an epithelial sodium channel, expressed on the apical surface of epithelial cells in the kidney, colon, and airways (19, 20), that plays a critical role in controlling fluid exchange. The ENaC a subunit has a functional FCS (17, 18) that is essential for ion channel function (19) and has been characterized in a variety of species. The FCS sequence of human ENaC a (20) is identical in chimpanzee, bonobo, orangutan, and gorilla (SI Appendix , Fig. 1), but diverges in all other species, even primates, except one. (The one non-human non-great ape species with the same sequence is Pipistrellus kuhlii, a bat species found in Europe and Western Asia; other bat species, including Rhinolophus ferrumequinem, have a different FCS sequence in ENaC a [RKAR’SAAS]). . . .”
9.–“ . . . . One consequence of this “molecular mimicry” between the FCS of SARS CoV‑2 spike and the FCS of human ENaC is competition for host furin in the lumen of the Golgi apparatus, where the SARS-CoV‑2 spike is processed. This results in a decrease in human ENaC expression (21). A decrease in human ENaC expression compromises airway function and has been implicated as a contributing factor in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 (22). Another consequence of this astonishing molecular mimicry is evidenced by apparent cross-reactivity with human ENaC of antibodies from COVID-19 patients, with the highest levels of cross-reacting antibodies directed against this epitope being associated with most severe disease (23). [Auto-immune reaction, possibly overlapping mRNA vaccines—D.E.]. . . .”
10.–“ . . . . We do know that the insertion of such FCS sequences into SARS-like viruses was a specific goal of work proposed by the EHA-WIV-UNC partnership within a 2018 grant proposal (“DEFUSE”) that was submitted to the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) (25).The 2018 proposal to DARPA was not funded, but we do not know whether some of the proposed work was subsequently carried out in 2018 or 2019, perhaps using another source of funding. . . .”
11.–“ . . . . We also know that that this research team would be familiar with several previous experiments involving the successful insertion of an FCS sequence into SARS-CoV‑1 (26) and other coronaviruses, and they had a lot of experience in construction of chimeric SARS-like viruses (27–29). In addition, the research team would also have some familiarity with the FCS sequence and the FCS-dependent activation mechanism of human ENaC (19), which was extensively characterized at UNC (17, 18).For a research team assessing the pandemic potential of SARS-related coronaviruses, the FCS of human ENaC—an FCS known to be efficiently cleaved by host furin present in the target location (epithelial cells) of an important target organ (lung), of the target organism (human)—might be a rational, if not obvious, choice of FCS to introduce into a virus to alter its infectivity, in line with other work performed previously. . . .”
12.–“ . . . . Of course, the molecular mimicry of ENaC within the SARS-CoV‑2 spike protein might be a mere coincidence, although one with a very low probability. The exact FCS sequence present in SARS-CoV‑2 has recently been introduced into the spike protein of SARS-CoV‑1 in the laboratory, in an elegant series of experiments (12, 30), with predictable consequences in terms of enhanced viral transmissibility and pathogenicity. Obviously, the creation of such SARS‑1/2 “chimeras” is an area of some concern for those responsible for present and future regulation of this area of biology. . . .”
13.–“ . . . . Information now held by the research team headed by EHA (7), as well as the communications of that research team with US research funding agencies, including NIH, USAID, DARPA, DTRA, and the Department of Homeland Security, could shed considerable light on the experiments undertaken by the US-funded research team and on the possible relationship, if any, between those experiments and the emergence of SARS-CoV‑2. . . .”
This program supplements our long series on “The Oswald Institute of Virology.”
A pair of stories in The Wall Street Journal yield understanding of our media landscape and the degree of propagandizing of same.
Reportage about the WHO’s resumption of its inquiry into the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic hasn’t received much coverage in the U.S.
What coverage there has been has–predictably–focused on the “lack of transparency/cooperation” by China in the probe.
(We reiterate that–at this point in time and sometime before–the Chinese response would have be governed by the disciplines warranted by a wartime investigation of an enemy attack. In this case, a U.S. biological warfare attack. Something of a “bio-Northwoods” operation.)
A remarkable aspect of the Journal’s coverage concerns a development that has been almost completely excised from the Western press: ” . . . . For months, China’s government has insisted both in public, and in private meetings with Dr. Tedros, that studies on the origins of the virus should now focus on other countries, such as Italy, or on a U.S. military bioresearch facility in Fort Detrick, Md. Dozens of governments aligned with China have sent Dr. Tedros letters in support of Beijing’s position, a person familiar with the letters said. . . .”
“Dozens of governments?” Which ones? This sounds like a major international dialogue/scandal.
WHY aren’t we hearing about it?
I think it affords us some perspective on just how carefully manicured the public perspective is in this country.
In another article in the same issue of the Journal, it was noted that Jeffrey Sachs is disbanding the scientific panel he oversaw on behalf of the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet, due to the presence of EcoHealth Alliance chief Peter Daszak and several other members of the panel associated with the organization.
” . . . . Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs said he has disbanded a task force of scientists probing the origins of Covid-19 in favor of wider bio-safety research. Dr. Sachs, chairman of a Covid-19 commission affiliated with The Lancet scientific journals, said he closed the task force because he was concerned about its links to EcoHealth Alliance. . . . EcoHealth Alliance’s president, Peter Daszak, led the task force until recusing himself from that role in June. Some other members of the task force have collaborated with Dr. Daszak or EcoHealth Alliance on projects. . . . .”
EcoHealth Alliance has been heavily involved in coronavirus research–including gain-of-function work–at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. We have noted that the DARPA has been heavily involved with that category of research.
As noted in past programs and discussion, the EcoHealth Alliance is funded primarily by the Department of Defense and USAID, a State Department subsidiary that has often served as a cover for CIA operations. One of the principal advisers of the organization is David Franz, the former commanding officer of Fort Detrick.
Worth noting is that Jeffrey Sachs–an American economics professor–was tabbed to select those personnel to serve on a panel of experts assembled under the auspices of The Lancet–a British medical journal.
In addition to his role advising both Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Sachs headed the U.S. government-funded Harvard University consortium that advised Boris Yeltsin and, in the process, drove Russia back to the stone age.
In Russia, it is widely believed that Sachs work for the CIA–a theory that is bolstered by his pivotal role in managing the narrative concerning the origins of the pandemic.
We have done many programs underscoring our working hypothesis that Covid-19 is a biological warfare weapon, developed by the U.S. and deployed as part of the destabilization program against China we have covered since the fall of 2019.
(Some of those programs are: FTR#‘s 1157, 1158, 1159, 1170 and FTR#‘s 1183 through 1193, inclusive.)
Next, we highlight a heavily “spun” story about the EcoHealth Alliance and its involvement with Pentagon-linked research into bat-borne coronaviruses may well–when freed from the predictably ideologized journalistic shading to which it has been subjected–yield a “smoking genome” with regard to the SARS CoV‑2 virus causing the Covid-19 pandemic.
(The Intercept is the spawn of Pierre Omidyar, deeply involved in the ascent of the Nazi OUN/B milieu in Ukraine and that of the Hindutva fascist regime of Narendra Modi in India. He has partnered with U.S. intelligence cutouts such as the National Endowment for Democracy and USAID. Omidyar’s protege Glenn Greenwald is to be viewed with a jaundiced eye as well.)
Key points of information in the article:
1.–” . . . . Last month, a grant application submitted to the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) revealed that an international team of scientists had planned to mix genetic data of similar strains to create a new virus. The grant application was made in 2018 . . . .”
2.–” . . . . The grant application proposal was submitted by British zoologist Peter Daszak on behalf of a group, which included Daszak EcoHealth Alliance, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the University of North Carolina and Duke NUS in Singapore, The Telegraph reported. . . .”
3.–” . . . . ‘We will compile sequence/RNAseq data from a panel of closely related strains and compare full length genomes, scanning for unique SNPs representing sequencing errors. ‘Consensus candidate genomes will be synthesised commercially using established techniques and genome-length RNA and electroporation to recover recombinant viruses,’ the application states. . . .”
4.–” . . . . The WHO expert told The Telegraph that the process detailed in the application would create ‘a new virus sequence, not a 100 per cent match to anything.’ ‘They would then synthesise the viral genome from the computer sequence, thus creating a virus genome that did not exist in nature but looks natural as it is the average of natural viruses. ‘Then they put that RNA in a cell and recover the virus from it. ‘This creates a virus that has never existed in nature, with a new ‘backbone’ that didn’t exist in nature but is very, very similar as it’s the average of natural backbones,’ the expert said. . . .”
5.–” . . . . Experts told the paper that creating an ‘ideal’ average virus could have been part of work to create a vaccine that works across coronaviruses. Last month, it emerged that the US had funded similar research to that outlined in the 2018 grant proposal. . . .”
Key considerations in the context of which this story should be viewed:
1.–DARPA has been extensively involved in researching bat-borne coronaviruses in, and around China.
2.–Note that the proposal to DARPA involved extensive discussion of the genome of the virus to be synthesized. Utilizing contemporary technology, this would permit the synthesis of the virus without necessarily approving the proposal!
3.–Note that the latest innovations in biotechnology permit: ” . . . . Advances in the area mean that scientists now have the capability to recreate dangerous viruses from scratch; make harmful bacteria more deadly; and modify common microbes so that they churn out lethal toxins once they enter the body. . . .”
4.–Those innovations also permit: ” . . . . In the report, the scientists describe how synthetic biology, which gives researchers precision tools to manipulate living organisms, ‘enhances and expands’ opportunities to create bioweapons. . . .”
5.–Those innovations also permit: ” . . . . Today, the genetic code of almost any mammalian virus can be found online and synthesized. ‘The technology to do this is available now,’ said [Michael] Imperiale. ‘It requires some expertise, but it’s something that’s relatively easy to do, and that is why it tops the list.’ . . .”
6.–The chief funding sources for the EcoHealth Alliance are the Pentagon and USAID, a State Department subsidiary that commonly serves as a cover for CIA.
7.–One of Peter Daszak’s chief advisers is David Franz, the former commanding officer of Fort Detrick.
8.–In FTR#1191, we noted that producing a vaccine for an existing biological weapon or one under advanced development might well be seen as an “offensive” biological warfare maneuver.
9.–This article, like many others, features commentary from Richard Ebright to the effect that the WIV did, in fact, synthesize the virus. Ebright had a long association with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the former owner of the Hughes Aircraft Company, a firm with profound national security connections. It is more than a little interesting that Ebright, like almost all of the other commenters quoted in the U.S., does not factor in the innovations in biotechnology highlighted above.
10.–Of interest, as well, is this passage: ” . . . . Experts told the paper that creating an ‘ideal’ average virus could have been part of work to create a vaccine that works across coronaviruses. Last month, it emerged that the US had funded similar research to that outlined in the 2018 grant proposal. . . .”
11.–The Pentagon has, indeed, been working on such a vaccine: ” . . . . The service is closing in on a ‘pan-coronavirus’ vaccine and on synthetic antibodies that could protect a population before spread. . . .”
Pompeo State Department officials pursuing the lab-leak hypothesis were told to cover it up lest it shed light on U.S. government funding of research at the “Oswald Institute of Virology!”: ” . . . . In one State Department meeting, officials seeking to demand transparency from the Chinese government say they were explicitly told by colleagues not to explore the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s gain-of-function research, because it would bring unwelcome attention to U.S. government funding of it. . . . In an internal memo obtained by Vanity Fair, Thomas DiNanno, former acting assistant secretary of the State Department’s Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance, wrote that. . . staff from two bureaus . . . ‘warned’ leaders within his bureau ‘not to pursue an investigation into the origin of COVID-19’ because it would ‘open a can of worms’ if it continued.’ . . . . As the group probed the lab-leak scenario, among other possibilities, its members were repeatedly advised not to open a ‘Pandora’s box,’ said four former State Department officials interviewed by Vanity Fair. . . .”
New York Times right-wing columnist Ross Douthat has highlighted the propaganda significance of pinning the “Lab Leak Theory” on China.
In an ironic tragedy worthy of Aeschylus, Douthat has been struggling with Lyme Disease, and has suffered greatly in his attempts to navigate the Lyme Disease treatment labyrinth. We have done many programs on Lyme Disease and its development as a biological warfare weapon.
Interviewed by an indie filmmaker named Tim Grey, Willy Burgdorfer discussed the development of Lyme Disease as a biological warfare weapon. It was Burgdorfer who “discovered” the spirochete that caused Lyme Disease in 1982. As we will see later, it appears that more than one organism is involved with Lyme Disease.
1.–” . . . . Willy paused, then replied, ‘Question: Has [sic] Borrelia Burgdorferi have the potential for biological warfare?’ As tears welled up in Willy’s eyes, he continued, ‘Looking at the data, it already has. If the organism stays within the system, you won’t even recognize what it is. In your lifespan, it can explode . . . We evaluated. You never deal with that [as a scientist]. You can sleep better.’ . . .”
2.–” . . . . Later in the video, Grey circled back to this topic and asked, ‘If there’s an emergence of a brand-new epidemic that has the tenets of all of those things that you put together, do you feel responsible for that?’ ‘Yeah. . . .’ ”
3.–” . . . . Grey asked him the one question, the only question, he really cared about: ‘Was the pathogen that you found in the tick that Allen Steere [the Lyme outbreak investigator] gave you the same pathogen or similar, or a generational mutation, of the one you published in the paper . . . the paper from 1952?’ ”
4.–” . . . . The left side of his mouth briefly curled up, as if he is thinking, ‘Oh, well.’ Then anger flashes across his face. ‘Yah,’ he said, more in German than English. . . .”
5.–” . . . . It was a stunning admission from one of the world’s foremost authorities on Lyme disease. If it was true, it meant that Willy had left out essential data from his scientific articles on the Lyme disease outbreak, and that as the disease spread like a wildfire in the Northeast and Great Lakes regions of the United States, he was part of the cover-up of the truth. . . It had been created in a military bioweapons lab for the specific purpose of harming human beings. . . . ”
Next, we present discussion of Ms. Newby’s expose of the institutionally and financially incestuous relationship between bureaucratic and corporate entities that both regulate, and profit from, Lyme Disease. Key “experts” involved with diagnosing and treating the affliction run interference for the status quo.
Legal and regulatory rulings have enabled the patenting of living organisms and that has exacerbated the monetizing of Lyme Disease treatment. That monetization, in turn, has adversely affected the quality of care for afflicted patients. ” . . . . All of a sudden, the institutions that were supposed to be protectors of public health became business partners with Big Pharma. The university researchers who had previously shared information on dangerous emerging diseases were now delaying publishing their findings so they could become entrepreneurs and profit from patents through their university technology transfer groups. We essentially lost our system of scientific checks and balances. And this, in turn, has undermined patient trust in the institutions that are supposed to ‘do no harm.’ . . .”
Strikingly, a FOIA suit she filed was stonewalled for five years, before finally yielding the documents she had so long sought.
The “experts” and their agenda were neatly, and alarmingly, summed up by Ms. Newby:
” . . . . The emails revealed a disturbing picture of a nonofficial group of government employees and guidelines authors that had been setting the national Lyme disease research agenda without public oversight or transparency. . . . Bottom line, the guidelines authors regularly convened in government-funded, closed-door meetings with hidden agendas that lined the pockets of academic researchers with significant commercial interests in Lyme disease tests and vaccines. A large percentage of government grants were awarded to the guideline authors and/or researchers in their labs. Part of the group’s stated mission, culled from these FOIA emails, was to run a covert ‘disinformation war’ and a ‘sociopolitical offensive’ to discredit Lyme patients, physicians, and journalists who questioned the group’s research and motives. In the FOIA-obtained emails, Lyme patients and their treating physicians were called ‘loonies’ and ‘quacks’ by Lyme guidelines authors and NIH employees. . . .”
We conclude with review of a chilling set of provocations that were planned by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the early 1960s. Although they were not formally instituted at that time, Mr. Emory believes the scenarios discussed below have been adapted to the modern, high-technology available to biological warfare practitioners and instituted as the Covid-19 “op.”
Harvesting the lethal political crop risen from seeds planted before, during and in the immediate aftermath of World War II, this program sets forth the dynamics underlying the Covid-19 operation.
In numerous programs and posts, we have presented disturbing evidence that SARS CoV‑2 may well be a man-made virus, and that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was set up to take the fall for its creation.
(We have termed that institution “The Oswald Institute of Virology,”–set up to take the fall for the creation of the virus rather like the way Lee Harvey Oswald was “painted red” in order to set up “the Communists” to take the fall for the assassination of JFK.)
Before setting forth the Pentagon, State Department and [probable] CIA funding for the research into bat-borne coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, it is fundamental to an understanding of the realization of the Covid “op” to grasp the state of the art in genetic engineering of microorganisms.
As detailed in a very important article from The Guardian: “ . . . Advances in the area mean that scientists now have the capability to recreate dangerous viruses from scratch; make harmful bacteria more deadly; and modify common microbes so that they churn out lethal toxins once they enter the body. . . In the report, the scientists describe how synthetic biology, which gives researchers precision tools to manipulate living organisms, ‘enhances and expands’ opportunities to create bioweapons. . . . Today, the genetic code of almost any mammalian virus can be found online and synthesised. ‘The technology to do this is available now,’ said [Michael] Imperiale. “It requires some expertise, but it’s something that’s relatively easy to do, and that is why it tops the list. . . .”
Also fundamental to an understanding of the Covid “op” is the devastating nature of bat-borne viruses when introduced into the human body.
A lengthy excerpt of an article we will examine at greater length is important to consider in this context: “. . . . A Google Scholar search produced two papers Shi has published that lists DTRA as a funder.
To see how the first paper, ‘Comparative Analysis of Bat Genomes Provides Insight into the Evolution of Flight and Immunity,’ is relevant to biological weaponry, it helps to understand the military’s interest in bat immunity.
As Boston University microbiologist Thomas Kepler explained to the Washington Post in 2018, the bat’s unique approach to viral infection explains why viruses that transfer from bats to humans are so severe.
This was the subject of a paper, ‘The Egyptian Rousette Genome Reveals Unexpected Features of Bat Antiviral Immunity,’ that he published with military scientists and DTRA funding.
‘A virus that has co-evolved with the bat’s antiviral system is completely out of its element in the human,’ Kepler said. ‘That’s why it is so deadly — the human immune system is overwhelmed by the inflammatory response.’
The bat immune system responds very differently from ours to viral infection. Instead of attacking and killing an infected cell, which leads to a cascade of inflammatory responses, the bat immune system can starve the virus by turning down cellular metabolism.
The bat origin of SARS-CoV‑2 may explain the cytokine storms that are hastening some COVID-19 deaths. According to WebMD:
‘Certain kinds of cytokines trigger cell death. When you have many cells doing this at the same time, a lot of tissue can die. In COVID-19, that tissue is mostly in the lung. As the tissue breaks down, the walls of the lungs’ tiny air sacs become leaky and fill with fluid, causing pneumonia and starving the blood of oxygen.’
Kepler says the military is using its experiments on bat immunity to ‘develop drugs that dampen down inflammation and arrest the virus by depriving it of what it needs to grow rather than trying to kill it outright.’ But, it clearly has another objective, as well: to make viruses more deadly by ‘passaging’ them through bats. . . .”
A recent article in the liberal “New York Magazine” discusses the Wuhan Institute of Virology and gain-of-function experiments performed under the joint auspices of that institution and the Pentagon-funded EcoHealth Alliance of Peter Daszak. Daszak is advised by David Franz, the former commander of Ft. Detrick.
Funded by USAID (a State Department subsidiary that serves as a cover for CIA covert operations), that program saw Chinese researchers partner with, among others, Ralph Baric.
In the detailed analysis presented by Nicholson Baker in the article, no mention is made of the Pentagon funding of EcoHealth Alliance, nor the disturbing information about DARPA’s research into bat-borne coronaviruses detailed in the consummately important article by Whitney Webb.
The Baker piece does conclude with an oblique nod to the ease with which viruses can be synthesized and holds open the possibility that Fort Detrick or any other place could have been the locus of synthesis.
“. . . . SARS‑2 seems almost perfectly calibrated to grab and ransack our breathing cells and choke the life out of them. ‘By the time SARS-CoV‑2 was first detected in late 2019, it was already pre-adapted to human transmission,’ Alina Chan and her co-authors have written, whereas SARS, when it first appeared in 2003, underwent ‘numerous adaptive mutations’ before settling down. Perhaps viral nature hit a bull’s‑eye of airborne infectivity, with almost no mutational drift, no period of accommodation and adjustment, or perhaps some lab worker somewhere, inspired by Baric’s work with human airway tissue, took a spike protein that was specially groomed to colonize and thrive deep in the ciliated, mucosal tunnels of our inner core and cloned it onto some existing viral bat backbone. It could have happened in Wuhan, but — because anyone can now ‘print out’ a fully infectious clone of any sequenced disease — it could also have happened at Fort Detrick, or in Texas, or in Italy, or in Rotterdam, or in Wisconsin, or in some other citadel of coronaviral inquiry. . . .”
The analysis begins with excerpting of a thought-provoking and disturbing article about DARPA research into bat-borne diseases, including some caused by coronaviruses–is set forth here.
As readers digest this information, remember that DARPA can bring to bear the twined technologies artificial intelligence and super-computers. It has the state of the art with respect to both. Combined with gene editing, that technological pairing offers the possibility of truly horrifying synthetic viruses.
In FTR #‘s 1157, 1158 and 1159, we highlighted very disturbing connections between Peter Daszak and his EcoHealth Alliance and the Pentagon and USAID, a State Department subsidiary that serves as a frequent cover for CIA.
The EcoHealth Alliance–financed by USAID–partnered with the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Dr. Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to research bat-borne coronaviruses. A “chimeric” virus was created by Baric under this program in 2015, and Baric was subsequently selected to create the SARS Cov‑2 virus from scratch.
A new article adds further depth to the alarming connections of Daszak, the EcoHealth Alliance and Jeffrey Sachs. (As discussed in a number of programs, including the above-mentioned FTR #‘s 1157, 1158 and 1159, Sachs presided over the Harvard Institute of International Development, a US-funded organization that advised Boris Yeltsin’s disastrous economic policy in Russia.)
Many in Russia view Sachs as “an emissary either of Satan or the CIA.” Recent political incarnations have him as a member of the [Bernie] Sanders Institute and an advisor to AOC.
A brilliant, insightful article by Sam Husseini on Independent Science News provides critical depth to our previous coverage of Citizen Daszak.
Husseini notes that:
1.–The Pentagon and USAID (a State Department subsidiary that has frequently fronted for CIA) are the largest funders of EcoHealth Alliance, which obscures this fact: “ . . . . Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance obscures its Pentagon funding. . . . Only buried under their ‘Privacy Policy,’ under a section titled ‘EcoHealth Alliance Policy Regarding Conflict of Interest in Research,’ does the EcoHealth Alliance concede it is the ‘recipient of various grant awards from federal agencies including . . . . the US Agency for International Development and the Department of Defense.’ . . . Even this listing is deceptive. It obscures that its two largest funders are the Pentagon and the State Department (USAID) . . . . These two sources thus total over $103 million. . . .”
2.–One of the principal advisers to EcoHealth Alliance is David Franz: ” . . . . The military links of the EcoHealth Alliance are not limited to money and mindset. One noteworthy ‘policy advisor’ to the EcoHealth Alliance is David Franz. Franz is former commander of Fort Detrick, which is the principal U.S. government biowarfare/biodefense facility. . . .”
3.–Peter Daszak has high regards for Donald Rumsfeld, whom he enthusiastically quotes. (Rumsfeld was Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences for many years, leaving that position to become Secretary of Defense for George W. Bush. Rumsfeld made millions on his sale of Gilead stock, which soared in value following the Pentagon’s purchase of Gilead’s Tamiflu to combat a feared breakout of H5N1 influenza. Gildead Sciences makes remdesivir, which was being tested on rhesus macaques at the U.S. Army’s Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick in the spring of 2019. The USAAMRIID was shut down by the CDC in early August of 2019, in part for the improper disposal of waste from “non-human primates” infected with a “select agent” which has not been disclosed for national security reasons.) ” . . . . ‘It’s an awesome quote! And yes, it’s Donald Rumsfeld, Jeff, and I know he’s a Republican, but — what a genius!’ . . .”
4.–The close association of Jeffrey Sachs and Daszak: ” . . . . In September, Sachs’ commission [on the Lancet–D.E.] named Daszak to head up its committee on the pandemic’s origins. Daszak is also on the WHO’s committee to investigate the pandemic’s origin. He is the only individual on both committees. . . .”
Centered primarily on the work of respected Chinese scientist Shi Zhengli and her gain-of-function experiments on bat-borne coronaviruses, another important article points out that her work is inextricably-linked with the Pentagon, USAID-funded Ecohealth Alliance.
Although Ms. Baden-Mayer’s article uncritically presents material from dubious sources such as The National Review, it does not shirk on coverage of the importance of Daszak’s organization and the many military and national security links to the work at the WIV performed by Shi Zhengli and her colleagues.
NB: A major–albeit understandable– flaw in Ms. Baden-Mayer’s research is the fact that neither she, nor many of the people she quotes, takes stock of the fact that ANY VIRUS CAN BE SYNTHESIZED OR ALTERED IN A LABORATORY USING CONTEMPORARY TECHNOLOGY!
Key Points of Discussion and Analysis Include:
1.–A National Institute of Health query of the work at WIV, the questions in which were presented to Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance! ” . . . . The letter with these demands didn’t go to Shi or WIV, it went to EcoHealth Alliance, a U.S.-based non-profit funded by the U.S. government, including [primarily] the U.S. military, to support scientists working in 30 countries. EcoHealth Alliance is listed as a funding source on some of Shi’s most controversial papers. And EcoHealth Alliance scientists, including its president Peter Daszak, often co-author, with Shi, published papers. . . .”
2.–Review of the operational relationship between Daszak’s organization, and Shi Zhengli’s cooperation with Ralph Baric: ” . . . . Shi’s most infamous EcoHealth Alliance-funded paper is, ‘A SARS-Like Cluster of Circulating Bat Coronaviruses Shows Potential for Human Emergence.’ In this controversial gain-of-function research collaboration with U.S. scientist Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Shi and Baric used genetic engineering and synthetic biology to weaponize a bat coronavirus, maximizing its potential human infectivity. . . .”
3.–Review of the USAID funding of the EcoHealth Alliance/Shi/Baric collaboration (USAID is a State Department subsidiary which serves as one of CIA’s most common and insidious front organizations. ) ” . . . . Shi’s funding for this study came through a USAID Emerging Pandemic Threats-PREDICT grant to EcoHealth Alliance—but the record for this grant appears to have been scrubbed from the U.S. government’s database. . . .”
4.–Review of the obfuscation of the USAID funding for the EcoHealth Alliance for this period. “. . . . EcoHealth Alliance was a PREDICT partner during the 2009–2014 funding cycle, but there is no record of a USAID grant to EcoHealth Alliance for this time period among the $100.9 million in grants it has received from the U.S. government since 2003. . . .”
5.–Discussion of Shi/Daszak collaboration on on a key sequence–the RsShCo14-CoV Sequence: ” . . . . Shi’s contribution to the work she did with Baric was the ‘RsSHC014-CoV Sequence That Was Isolated from Chinese Horseshoe Bats.’ . . . . Shi Zhengli and Peter Daszak announced their discovery of RsSHC014 in their 2013 paper, ‘Isolation and Characterization of a Bat SARS-Like Coronavirus that Uses the ACE2 Receptor,’ and stated that it was found during ‘a 12-month longitudinal survey (April 2011–September 2012) of SL-CoVs in a colony of Rhinolophus sinicus at a single location in Kunming, Yunnan Province, China.’ . . . .”
6.–Funding for the Kunming virus research came from a number of institutions, including the NIH and USAID, which both have collaborated with Pentagon and CIA in the past.
7.–EcoHealth Alliance helped finance Shi’s research in Mojiang: ” . . . . Shi’s paper, ‘Coexistence of Multiple Coronaviruses in Several Bat Colonies in an Abandoned Mineshaft,’ was written by a team of scientists who were all Chinese nationals working at Chinese institutions. Nevertheless, in addition to funding from the Chinese government, the authors acknowledged support from the U.S. National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Disease (R01AI110964), a $3.7‑million grant to EcoHealth Alliance for ‘Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence,’ (2014–2025). . . .”
8.–Further review of Shi’s research funding from the Pentagon, via EcoHealth Alliance: ” . . . . Shi Zhengli and her collaborators are also funded by the U.S. military. Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance currently receives more money from the Department of Defense’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) for Scientific Research Combatting Weapons of Mass Destruction than any other military contractor—$15 million (25.575 percent) of the $60.2 million dispersed in the last 6 months. . . .”
9.–More about military collaboration with Shi: ” . . . . In addition to military funding through DTRA, Shi’s paper was co-authored by two U.S. military scientists, Christopher C. Broder and Eric D. Laing of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Department of Microbiology and Immunology. . . .”
The People’s Liberation Army assumed control of the Wuhan Institute of Virology on January 26, 2020 at the time that the genome for the SARS Cov‑2 was published: ” . . . . The Wuhan Institute of Virology is China’s only biosafety level 4 lab. While it has always been under the control of the Chinese government, since January 26, 2020, it has been under the command of the People’s Liberation Army, specifically its top biological-weapons specialist, a major general named Chen Wei. . . .”
Revisiting Peter Daszak, centrally involved in the gain-of-function research that appears to have spawned the SARS CoV2 virus and Covid-19, we note that Daszak has deflected inquiries into his work by calling critics “conspiracy theorists.” ” . . . The ‘media-industrial complex’ includes people in power who vehemently, if irrationally, deny a conspiratorial version of history, automatically mocking anyone who subscribes to it as a ‘conspiracy theorist,’ code words for ‘dangerously deranged fool.’ Uttering the phrase ‘conspiracy theorist’ is used as a convenient way of shutting down conversation on a subject. . . .”
We begin by revisiting the subject of synthesizing viruses in a laboratory. A study released by US National Academy of Sciences at the request of the Department of Defense about the threats of synthetic biology concluded that the techniques to tweak and weaponize viruses from known catalogs of viral sequences is very feasible and relatively easy to do.
In FTR #‘s 1157, 1158 and 1159, we highlighted very disturbing connections between Peter Daszak and his EcoHealth Alliance and the Pentagon and USAID, a State Department subsidiary that serves as a frequent cover for CIA.
The EcoHealth Alliance–financed by USAID–partnered with the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Dr. Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to research bat-borne coronaviruses. A “chimeric” virus was created by Baric under this program in 2015, and Baric was subsequently selected to create the SARS Cov‑2 virus from scratch.
It is our considered view that the WIV was set up for the blame for Covid-19, in a manner not unlike the “Painting of Oswald Red” discussed in–among other programs–FTR #‘s 925 and 926, as well as our series of interviews with Jim DiEugenio.
We have also noted the profound links between elements of the military and treatment regimens (vaccines and medicines) for Covid-19.
A new article adds further depth to the alarming connections of Daszak, the EcoHealth Alliance and Jeffrey Sachs. (As discussed in a number of programs, including the above-mentioned FTR #‘s 1157, 1158 and 1159, Sachs presided over the Harvard Institute of International Development, a US-funded organization that advised Boris Yeltsin’s disastrous economic policy in Russia.)
Many in Russia view Sachs as “an emissary either of Satan or the CIA.” Recent political incarnations have him as a member of the [Bernie] Sanders Institute and an advisor to AOC.
A brilliant, insightful article by Sam Husseini on Independent Science News provides critical depth to our previous coverage of Citizen Daszak.
Husseini notes that:
1.–The Pentagon and USAID (a State Department subsidiary that has frequently fronted for CIA) are the largest funders of EcoHealth Alliance, which obscures this fact: “ . . . . Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance obscures its Pentagon funding. . . . Only buried under their ‘Privacy Policy,’ under a section titled ‘EcoHealth Alliance Policy Regarding Conflict of Interest in Research,’ does the EcoHealth Alliance concede it is the ‘recipient of various grant awards from federal agencies including . . . . the US Agency for International Development and the Department of Defense.’ . . . Even this listing is deceptive. It obscures that its two largest funders are the Pentagon and the State Department (USAID) . . . . These two sources thus total over $103 million. . . .”
2.–One of the principal advisers to EcoHealth Alliance is David Franz: ” . . . . The military links of the EcoHealth Alliance are not limited to money and mindset. One noteworthy ‘policy advisor’ to the EcoHealth Alliance is David Franz. Franz is former commander of Fort Detrick, which is the principal U.S. government biowarfare/biodefense facility. . . .”
3.–Peter Daszak has high regards for Donald Rumsfeld, whom he enthusiastically quotes. (Rumsfeld was Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences for many years, leaving that position to become Secretary of Defense for George W. Bush. Rumsfeld made millions on his sale of Gilead stock, which soared in value following the Pentagon’s purchase of Gilead’s Tamiflu to combat a feared breakout of H5N1 influenza. Gildead Sciences makes remdesivir, which was being tested on rhesus macaques at the U.S. Army’s Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick in the spring of 2019. The USAAMRIID was shut down by the CDC in early August of 2019, in part for the improper disposal of waste from “non-human primates” infected with a “select agent” which has not been disclosed for national security reasons.) ” . . . . ‘It’s an awesome quote! And yes, it’s Donald Rumsfeld, Jeff, and I know he’s a Republican, but — what a genius!’ . . .”
4.–The close association of Jeffrey Sachs and Daszak: ” . . . . In September, Sachs’ commission [on the Lancet–D.E.] named Daszak to head up its committee on the pandemic’s origins. Daszak is also on the WHO’s committee to investigate the pandemic’s origin. He is the only individual on both committees. . . .”
Program Highlights Include: Further development of the media’s reflexive use of “conspiracy theory” and/or “conspiracy theorists” to preempt intelligent analysis of lethal covert operations–both foreign and domestic; The New York Times’ lead role in rhetorical firewall protecting both domestic and foreign covert operations.
The program begins with discussion of operational links between the Nazi/GOP milieu analyzed in FTR #1159 and elements we have analyzed in the context of the destabilization of China. (For the convenience of the listener and reader, key points of that discussion are included in the broadcast and below in this description.)
In FTR #‘s 1103, 1143, 1144, 1153 and 1154, we detailed the presence of OUN/B‑connected elements in Hong Kong and working in a propaganda role vis a vis the Uighurs in Xinjiang province. In Hong Kong, elements of the Azov Battalion and Pravy Sektor (Right Sector) have been active in conjunction with the “pro-democracy” movement in Hong Kong (under the auspices of an EU NGO.)
German national and End Times Christian Adrian Zenz, a fellow with the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, has been the go-to figure for Western media on the alleged persecution of the Uighurs in Xinjiang Province. The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is a subsidiary element of the Captive Nations Committee and the OUN/B.
In previous programs, we examined in detail the activity of Peter Daszak and his EcoHealth Alliance–an organization crafted to “prevent” future pandemics, yet networked with the Pentagon and other national security bodies in work disturbingly suggestive of biological warfare research.
Joining Daszak in a commission assembled by the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet is Jeffrey Sachs, economic adviser to Bernie Sanders and AOC and the principal economic adviser to Russian president Boris Yeltsin. Sachs’ advice drove the Russian economy back to the Stone Age.
In this program we detail the strong, eugenicist overlap between “mainstream” anti-abortion organizations and their closely linked white supremacist colleagues. Seeking to maximize the birth rate of “Aryan” offspring and their percentage in the world’s population, they may be seen as being part of a political continuum which includes the Third Reich.
” . . . . Coexisting in abortion opposition is . . . . a white supremacist ideology that only desires to prevent white women from obtaining abortions, but uses universal opposition to abortion as a pragmatic screen for its goals. As Kathleen Belew, author of Bring the War Home: The White Power Movement in Paramilitary America, told The Nation in an interview in September, for white supremacists, ‘opposing abortion, opposing gay rights, opposing feminism, in white power discourse, all of this is tied to reproduction and the birth of white children.’ . . . Tim Bishop, a representative of the white nationalist Aryan Nations, said, ‘Lots of our people join [the anti-abortion movement]…. It’s part of our Holy War for the pure Aryan race.’ . . . . ”
Central to our analysis is a speculative, yet terrifying biotechnological element–gene drive technology. We have spoken about this in numerous previous programs.
” . . . . Gene drives have been dubbed an ‘extinction technology’ and with good reason: gene drive organisms are created by genetically engineering a living organism with a particular trait, and then modifying the organism’s reproductive system in order to always force the modified gene onto future generations, spreading the trait throughout the entire population. . . .”
” . . . . the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) is forcing dangerous gene drive technologies onto the world. BMGF is either the first or second largest funder of gene drive research (alongside the shadowy U.S. military organisation Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency [DARPA] ). . . .”
Just imagine what such technology–applied to human reproductive capacity–could do when deployed by fascist and Nazi elements in the military/medical establishment!
The emergence of such a development is being facilitated:
” . . . . a private PR firm called Emerging Ag, was paid US$1.6 million by the BMGF. Part of their work involved coordinating the ‘fight back against gene drive moratorium proponents,’ as well as running a covert advocacy coalition to exert influence on the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the key body for gene drive governance. After calls in 2016 for a global moratorium on the use of gene drive technology, the CBD sought input from scientists and experts in an online forum. Emerging Ag recruited and coordinated over 65 experts, including a Gates Foundation senior official, a DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Project Agency) official, and government and university scientists, in an attempt to flood the official UN process with their coordinated inputs. . . .”
At the conclusion of the program we present a very disturbing hypothetical concept: we fear that the effort to find viral pathogens around the world and make them more infectious via gain-of-function manipulations is intended to realize a global, eugenicist, exterminationist and white supremacist agenda by creating pandemics in the Third World, profit enormously by making vaccines to treat those pandemics and introduce gene drive technology into those populations via the vaccines in order to diminish reproduction in those populations.
The mRNA and DNA vaccines being produced by the DARPA-supported Moderna and Inovio firms should be considered in connection with this nightmarish working hypothesis.
A noteworthy development in the Covid-19 “op” concerns the selection of experts to oversee The Lancet’s investigation of the origins of the SARS CoV‑2.
In FTR #1156, we looked at the involvement of known U.S. intelligence cut-outs–notably USAID–and their funding of programs ostensibly aimed at preventing epidemics. Those programs involved the “Gain-of-Function” mutation of bat-borne coronaviruses, creating novel “chimeric” viruses that never existed before.
The ostensible purpose was to “prevent” future epidemics. We wondered in FTR #1156 if those ostensible epidemic “prevention” programs may have masked epidemic propagation programs, rather like Unit 731.
Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance was selected to lead the project.
His perspective would, on the surface, appear to be less than objective, in as much as he championed the very type of GOF experiments that are at the center of this inquiry.
Of interest, as well, is the selection of Jeffrey Sachs, an economist, member of the [Bernie] Sanders Institute, economic adviser to Bernie Sanders, economic adviser to AOC and, most importantly, head of the [partly] government financed Harvard Institute of International Development which (as advisers to Boris Yeltsin) drove the Russian economy back to the Stone Age.
Sachs has no medical or scientific credentials.
A consummately important article about Daszak and the EcoHealth Alliance provides troubling insights into the uneven professional track record of Daszak and the profound involvement of the organization he heads with the Pentagon and other U.S. national security establishment institutions.
EcoHealth Alliance looks disturbingly like an organization that fronts for elements and individuals involved with biological warfare research.
“Peter Daszak, President of EcoHealth Alliance, is a top scientific collaborator, grantwriter and spokesperson for virus hunters and gain-of-function/dual-use researchers, in labs both military and civilian.
Daszak works with dozens of high-containment laboratories around the world that collect pathogens and use genetic engineering and synthetic biology to make them more infectious, contagious, lethal or drug-resistant. These include labs controlled by the U.S. Department of Defense, in countries in the former Soviet Union, the Middle East, South East Asia and Africa.
Many of these labs are staffed by former biological weapons scientists. (See Arms Watch’s reports.) Before the Biological Weapons Convention was ratified, this research was called what it is: biological weapons research. Now, it’s euphemistically called gain-of-function or dual-use research.
Gain-of-function research to alter coronaviruses for the infection of humans goes back to 1999 or earlier, years before the first novel coronavirus outbreak. On behalf of the U.S. government, often the military, Daszak scours the globe for animal pathogens and brings them back to the lab to be catalogued, investigated and manipulated. . . .”
Key points of analysis and discussion include:
1.–EcoHealth Alliance contracts with the Pentagon in Tanzania, South Africa, Georgia and Malaysia, as well as the U.S.
2.–” . . . . A recent Wired magazine article quoting Daszak described how a virus collected in 2012 was found to be a 96-percent match to SARS-CoV‑2 in 2020 . . . ‘a lack of funding meant they couldn’t further investigate the virus strain now known to be 96 percent genetically similar to the virus that causes Covid-19’ . . . .”
3.–Daszak’s claim that they couldn’t further investigate that virus because of a lack of funding is dubious, in that recent grants to the organization are on top of ” . . . . $100.9 million that EcoHealth Alliance has received in government grants and contracts since 2003. . . .”
4.–Daszak does not explain how that virus (discovered in 2012) turned into SARS-CoV‑2. ” . . . . Some scientists say it would take 50 years for RaTG13 [the virus in question–D.E.] to turn into SARS-CoV‑2. . . .”
5.–Daszak is heavily networked with the Department of Homeland Security: ” . . . . the Department of Homeland Security’s National Biosurveillance Integration Center (NBIC) . . . . gave Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance a $2.2‑million contract (2016–2019) to create a ‘Ground Truth Network’ of ‘subject matter experts’ who could provide ‘contextual information pertaining to biological events.’ . . . .”
6.–The intellectual and professional track record of Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance is porous. EcoHealth Alliance floated a canard about Ebola potentially traveling to the U.S. ” . . . . an EcoHealth Alliance spokesperson, spread a false (not to mention racist and xenophobic) narrative, one that subsequently would be thoroughly debunked, that bushmeat smuggled to the U.S. from Africa could transmit Ebola to Americans. . . .”
7.–Daszak missed the boat badly with regard to SARS: ” . . . . It is commonly accepted that the SARS pandemic began in 2002, when humans caught a bat virus from civet cats at a wet market in Guangdong, China. But Daszak and his collaborators admit they have no evidence to explain how the virus leapt from bats to civets to humans. . . .”
8.–” . . . . SARS-CoV was found in civets at the Guangdong wet market, but civets aren’t the natural reservoir of this virus. Bats are. Only the civets at the market—and no farm-raised or wild civets—carried the virus. None of the animal traders handling the civets at the market had SARS. . . .”
9.–” . . . . When Daszak and his collaborators at the WIV searched the cave in Yunnan for strains of coronavirus similar to human versions, no single bat actually had SARS. Genetic pieces of the various strains would have to be recombined to make up the human version. Adding to the confusion, Yunnan is about 1,000 kilometers from Guangdong. . . .”
10.–” . . . . So, how did viruses from bats in Yunnan combine to become deadly to humans, and then travel to civets and people in Guangdong, without causing any illnesses along the way during this 1,000 kilometer trip? . . .”
11.–Daszak and the EcoHealth Alliance were deeply involved with a USAID and NIH funded joint WIV/University of North Carolina project we have covered extensively in past programs. ” . . . . The two institutions also worked as collaborators under another $2.6‑million grant, ‘Risk of Viral Emergence from Bats,’ and under EcoHealth Alliance’s largest single source of funding, a $44.2 million sub-grant from the University of California at Davis for the PREDICT project (2015–2020). . . .”
12.–” . . . . It’s the $44.2‑million PREDICT grant that EcoHealth Alliance used to fund the gain-of-function experiment by WIV scientist Zhengli Shi and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Ralph Baric. Shi and Baric used genetic engineering and synthetic biology to create a ‘new bat SARS-like virus . . . that can jump directly from its bat hosts to humans.’ . . .”
13.–” . . . . The work . . . published in Nature in 2015 during the NIH’s moratorium on gain-of-function research, was grandfathered in because it was initiated before the moratorium (officially called the U.S. Government Deliberative Process Research Funding Pause on Selected Gain-of-Function Research Involving Influenza, MERS and SARS Viruses), and because the request by Shi and Baric to continue their research during the moratorium was approved by the NIH. . . .”
14.–” . . . . As a condition of publication, Nature, like most scientific journals, requires authors to submit new DNA and RNA sequences to GenBank, the U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information Database. Yet the new SARS-like virus Shi and Baric created wasn’t deposited in GenBank until May 2020. . . .”
15.–” . . . . why is the government focusing on just one of EcoHealth Alliance’s projects, when the organization has received $100.9 million in grants, primarily from the Department of Defense, to sample, store and study bat coronaviruses at labs around the world? Coronaviruses, both those that have been collected from animals and those that have been created through genetic engineering and synthetic biology, at all of these labs should be compared with SARS-CoV‑2. . . . .”
16.–” . . . . Daszak’s collaborators working under contracts with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) aren’t allowed to conduct gain-of-function research unless specifically approved to do so by the Potential Pandemic Pathogen Care and Oversight (P3CO) committee. This committee was set up as a condition for lifting the 2014–2017 moratorium on gain-of-function research. The P3CO committee operates in secret. Not even a membership list has been released. . . .”
17.–Exemplifying EcoHealth Alliance’s work is a Pentagon contract with Tanzania, researching CCHF–Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever. ” . . . . EcoHealth Alliance has a $5‑million Pentagon contract, ‘Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever: Reducing an Emerging Health Threat in Tanzania.’ Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF) is a tick-borne disease, originally only infecting animals. . . . There was only ever one case of CCHF in Tanzania, and that was in 1986. . . . Gain-of-function research on CCHF is being conducted at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) . . . . (The National Bio and Agro Defense Facility will take over the mission of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center and become the lead facility for Foreign Animal Disease research.) . . .”
Program Highlights Include: The prominent role in the Sanders Institute and AOC’s advisory team of Jeffrey Sachs, whose HIID team of advisers (with government funding) sent Russia back to the Stone Age, economically; the “handoff” to Jeffrey Sachs and his HIID of Russia and other former Soviet Republics by the Gehlen/GOP Nazis manifesting through the Free Congress Foundation; review of the operational political continuum stretching from the Third Reich, through the OSS, the CIA and the GOP; review of the roles of Allen Dulles, William Casey, Resorts International and Donald Trump in that continuum.
As the title indicates, this program presents a potpourri of articles covering a number of topics.
A common thread uniting them is the ongoing New Cold War and elements factoring in the impeachment proceedings underway in Washington.
Reputed evidence of a new “hack” allegedly done by the G.R.U. doesn’t pass the sniffs test.
Factors to be weighed in connection with the latest “hack” of the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma (on whose board Hunter Biden sits–a fact that has been a focal point of the impeachment proceedings):
1.–Blake Darche, co-founder and Chief Security officer of Area 1, the firm that “detected” the latest “hack” has a strong past association with CrowdStrike, the firm that helped launch the New Cold War propaganda blitz about supposed Russian hacks. Darche was a Principal Consultant at CrowdStrike.
2.–CrowdStrike, in turn, has strong links to the Atlantic Council, one of the think tanks that is part and parcel to the Intermarium Continuity discussed in FTR #‘s 1098, 1099, 1100, 1101. Dmitri Alperovitch, the company’s co-founder and Chief Technology Officer is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.
3.–An ironic element of the “analysis” of the hacks attributes the acts to “Fancy Bear” and the G.R.U., based on alleged laziness on the part of the alleged perpetrators of the phishing attack. (Phishing attacks are very easy for a skilled actor to carry out in relative anonymity.) Area 1’s conclusion is based on “pattern recognition,” which is the embodiment of laziness. We are to believe that the G.R.U./Fancy Bear alleged perp used a “cookie cutter” approach.
As we have noted in many previous broadcasts and posts, cyber attacks are easily disguised. Perpetrating a “cyber false flag” operation is disturbingly easy to do. In a world where the verifiably false and physically impossible “controlled demolition”/Truther nonsense has gained traction, cyber false flag ops are all the more threatening and sinister.
Now, we learn that the CIA’s hacking tools are specifically crafted to mask CIA authorship of the attacks. Most significantly, for our purposes, is the fact that the Agency’s hacking tools are engineered in such a way as to permit the authors of the event to represent themselves as Russian.
” . . . . These tools could make it more difficult for anti-virus companies and forensic investigators to attribute hacks to the CIA. Could this call the source of previous hacks into question? It appears that yes, this might be used to disguise the CIA’s own hacks to appear as if they were Russian, Chinese, or from specific other countries. . . . This might allow a malware creator to not only look like they were speaking in Russian or Chinese, rather than in English, but to also look like they tried to hide that they were not speaking English . . . .”
This is of paramount significance in evaluating the increasingly neo-McCarthyite New Cold War propaganda about “Russian interference” in the U.S. election, and Russian authorship of the high-profile hacks.
With Burisma at the center of the impeachment proceedings in Washington, we note some interesting relationships involving Burisma and its board of directors, on which Hunter Biden sits.
Some of the considerations to be weighed in that context
1.–Burisma formed a professional relationship with the Atlantic Council in 2017: ” . . . . In 2017, Burisma announced that it faced no active prosecution cases, then formed a partnership with the Atlantic Council, a US think-tank active in promoting anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine. Burisma donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Atlantic Council last year . . . . Karina Zlochevska, Mr. [Burisma founder Mykola] Zlochevsky’s daughter, attended an Atlantic Council roundtable on promoting best business practices as recently as last week. . . .”
2.–The firm had on its board of Burisma of both Aleksander Kwasniewski and Cofer Black. ” . . . .When prosecutors began investigating Burisma’s licenses over self-dealing allegations, Mr Zlochevsky stacked its board with Western luminaries. . . . they included former Polish president Aleksander Kwasniewski, who had visited Ukraine dozens of times as an EU envoy, and . . . . ex-Blackwater director Cofer Black. In Monaco, where he reportedly lives, Mr Zlochevsky jointly organises an annual energy conference with Mr Kwasniewski’s foundation. . . . ”
3.–Kwasniewski was not only the EU’s envoy seeking fulfillment of the EU association agreement, but a key member of Paul Manafort’s Hapsburg Group. The evidence about Manafort working with that assemblage to maneuver Ukraine into the Western orbit is extensive. Some of the relevant programs are: FTR #‘s 1008, 1009 (background about the deep politics surrounding the Hapsburg–U.S. intelligence alliance) and 1022.That the actual Maidan Coup itself was sparked by a provocation featuring the lethal sniping by OUN/B successor elements is persuasive. Some of the relevant programs are: FTR #‘s 982, 1023, 1024.
4.–Kwasniewski’s foundation’s annual energy conferences bring to mind the Three Seas Initiative and the central role of energy in it. The TSI and the role of energy in same is highlighted in the article at the core of FTR #‘s 1098–1101. In this context, note the role of the Atlantic Council in the TSI and its energy component, along with the partnership between Burisma and the Atlantic Council. The TSI and its energy component, in turn, are a fundamental element of the Intermarium Continuity, the military component of which is now being cemented in the Impeachment Circus: ” . . . . Under the mentorship of Jarosław Kaczyński, the new Polish president, Andrzej Duda, elected in 2015, relaunched the idea of a Baltic-Black Sea alliance on the eve of his inauguration under the label of ‘Three Seas Initiative’ (TSI). Originally, the project grew out of a debate sparked by a report co-published by the Atlantic Council and the EU energy lobby group Central Europe Energy Partners (CEEP) with the goal of promoting big Central European companies’ interests in the EU.[116] The report, entitled Completing Europe—From the North-South Corridor to Energy, Transportation, and Telecommunications Union, was co-edited by General James L. Jones, Jr., former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, U.S. National Security Advisor, and chairman of the Atlantic Council, and Pawel Olechnowicz, CEO of the Polish oil and gas giant Grupa Lotos.[117] It ‘called for the accelerated construction of a North-South Corridor of energy, transportation, and communications links stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Adriatic and Black Seas,’ which at the time was still referred to as the ‘Adriatic-Baltic-Black Sea Initiative.’[118] The report was presented in Brussels in March 2015, where, according to Frederick Kempe, president and CEO of the Atlantic Council, it ‘generated a huge amount of excitement.’ . . . .”
The presence on the Burisma board of Cofer Black “ex”-CIA and the former director of Erik Prince’s Blackwater outfit is VERY important. Erik Prince is the brother of Trump Education Secretary Betsy De Vos and the business partner of Johnson Cho Kun Sun, the Hong Kong-based oligarch who sits on the board of Emerdata, the reincarnated Cambridge Analytica. Both Cofer Black and Aleksander Kwasniewski are in a position to provide detailed intelligence about the operations of Burisma, including any data that the supposed “Russian hack” might reveal.
With the impeachment proceedings now heading toward their most probable conclusion–Trump’s acquittal– and with the incessant babble about the non-existent “Russian interference” in the U.S. election, it is worth contemplating American interference in Russian politics.
Against the background of decades of American-backed and/or initiated coups overthrowing governments around the world, we highlight U.S. support for Boris Yeltsin. Following the NED’s elevation of Nazi-allied fascists in Lithuania and the expansion of that Gehlen/CFF/GOP milieu inside the former Soviet Union courtesy of the Free Congress Foundation, the U.S. hoisted Yeltsin into the driver’s seat of the newly-minted Russia. (One should never forget that Jeffrey Sachs, a key economic adviser to Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez headed the team that sent the Russian economy back to the stone age.)
Key points of consideration:
1.–” . . . . . . . . In late 1991, after the fall of the Soviet Union, Boris Yeltsin won a year of special powers from the Russian Parliament: for one year, he was to be, in effect, the dictator of Russia to facilitate the midwifery of the birth of a democratic Russia. In March of 1992, under pressure from a discontented population, parliament repealed the dictatorial powers it had granted him. Yeltsin responded by declaring a state of emergency, giving himself the repealed dictatorial powers. Russia’s Constitutional Court ruled that Yeltsin was acting outside the constitution. But the US sided – against the Russian people and against the Russian Constitutional Court – with Yeltsin. . . .”
2.–” . . . . Yeltsin dissolved the parliament that had rescinded his powers and abolished the constitution of which he was in violation. In a 636–2 vote, the Russian parliament impeached Yeltsin. But President Bill Clinton again sided with Yeltsin against the Russian people and Russian law, giving him $2.5 billion in aid. . . .”
3.–” . . . . Yeltsin took the money and sent police officers and elite paratroopers to surround the parliament building. Clinton ‘praised the Russian President has (sic) having done ‘quite well’ in managing the standoff with the Russian Parliament,’ as The New York Times reported at the time. Clinton added that he thought ‘the United States and the free world ought to hang in there’ with their support of Yeltsin against his people, their constitution and their courts, and judged Yeltsin to be ‘on the right side of history.’ . . .”
4.–” . . . . On the right side of history and armed with machine guns, Yeltsin’s troops opened fire on the crowd of protesters, killing about 100 people before setting the Russian parliament building on fire. By the time the day was over, Yeltsin’s troops had killed an unconfirmed 500 people and wounded nearly 1,000. Still, Clinton stood with Yeltsin. . . .”
5.–” . . . . In 1996, America would interfere yet again. With elections looming, Yeltsin’s popularity was nonexistent, and his approval rating was at about 6 percent. According to Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies at Princeton, Stephen Cohen, Clinton’s interference in Russian politics, his ‘crusade’ to ‘reform Russia,’ had by now become official policy. And, so, America boldly interfered directly in Russian elections. Three American political consultants, receiving ‘direct assistance from Bill Clinton’s White House,’ secretly ran Yeltsin’s re-election campaign. As Time magazine broke the story, ‘For four months, a group of American political consultants clandestinely participated in guiding Yeltsin’s campaign.’ ‘Funded by the U.S. government,’ Cohen reports, Americans ‘gave money to favored Russian politicians, instructed ministers, drafted legislation and presidential decrees, underwrote textbooks, and served at Yeltsin’s reelection headquarters in 1996.’ . . . .”
6.–” . . . . Then ambassador to Russia Thomas Pickering even pressured an opposing candidate to drop out of the election to improve Yeltsin’s odds of winning. . . .”
7.–” . . . . The US not only helped run Yeltsin’s campaign, they helped pay for it. The US backed a $10.2 billion International Monetary Fund (IMF) loan for Russia, the second-biggest loan the IMF had ever given. The New York Times reported that the loan was ‘expected to be helpful to President Boris N. Yeltsin in the presidential election in June.’ . . .”
Recent Comments